Scientific writings are usually not thought of as being intentionally persuasive. Usually they are considered to be vehicles
for the presentation of data in a rather rigid format. However,
we argued in chapter 14 that most scientists want to influence
opinion and action by their presentations, and would be disappointed if they did not. Most papers are unread by those who
should read them, and only a few directly influence decision
makers. Solving reading overload will allow the conclusions
and essential data of many more papers to be read, integrated,
and remembered, but even then, many papers and surrogates
will not influence action. What are some of the things that
affect the cogency of messages? This chapter attempts to identify the variables that intervene along the way from reading to
doing.

It must be pointed out that chapters 15 through 17 deal more
with political, popular, and social than with scientific communication. The authors believe that the lack of cogency is
most serious in the popularization and interpretation of scientific discoveries to the Jay public and decision makers. Popularization and interpretation lend themselves most clearly to
the persuasion process described in chapter 14, because there
is a greater opportunity to vary the form and content of the
communication so as to enhance cogency. By and large, this is
the thrust of chapters 15 through 17, to examine the credibility

Print this page

While we understand printed pages are helpful to our users, this limitation is necessary
to help protect our publishers' copyrighted material and prevent its unlawful distribution.
We are sorry for any inconvenience.